Large language models (LLMs) show promise for grading open-ended assessments but still exhibit inconsistent accuracy, systematic biases, and limited reliability across assignments. To address these concerns, we introduce SURE (Selective Uncertainty-based Re-Evaluation), a human-in-the-loop pipeline that combines repeated LLM prompting, uncertainty-based flagging, and selective human regrading. Three LLMs—gpt-4.1-nano, gpt-5-nano, and the open-source gpt-oss-20b—graded answers of 46 students to 130 open questions and coding exercises across five assignments. Each student answer was scored 20 times to derive majority-voted predictions and self-consistency-based certainty estimates. We simulated human regrading by flagging low-certainty cases and replacing them with scores from four human graders. We used the first assignment as a training set for tuning certainty thresholds and to explore LLM output diversification via sampling parameters, rubric shuffling, varied personas, multilingual prompts, and post hoc ensembles. We then evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of SURE on the other four assignments using a fixed certainty threshold. Across assignments, fully automated grading with a single prompt resulted in substantial underscoring, and majority-voting based on 20 prompts improved but did not eliminate this bias. Low certainty (i.e., high output diversity) was diagnostic of incorrect LLM scores, enabling targeted human regrading that improved grading accuracy while reducing manual grading time by 40–90%. Aggregating responses from all three LLMs in an ensemble improved certainty-based flagging and most consistently approached human-level accuracy, with 70–90% of the grades students would receive falling inside human-grader ranges. A reanalysis based on outputs from a more diversified LLM ensemble comprised of gpt-5, codestral-25.01, and llama-3.3-70b-instruct replicated these findings but also suggested that large reasoning models such as gpt-5 might eliminate the need for human oversight of LLM grading entirely. These findings demonstrate that self-consistency-based uncertainty estimation and selective human oversight can substantially improve the reliability and efficiency of AI-assisted grading.
Korthals et al. (Mon,) studied this question.